Search

“You have in your published writings pointed to the fact that child abuse is a transgression of several articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have called for domestic law to give effect to a charter of rights. You are no doubt aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights powerfully affirms the right to honour and reputation. Article 12 provides that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

You should reflect upon the fact that you have seriously flouted your obligation to uphold the Universal Declaration. Would you care to be described publicly as “deceptive and duplicitous?”

Australian law protects Ms Tankard Reist against your breach of her rights, through the law of defamation. It is an imperfect protection, because it cannot require you to retract or apologise for your breach.

The only remedy the law provides is the right to obtain a judgment declaring that what you wrote was false, and an award of compensation. If you will not retract, the law will protect our client’s rights.

Without prejudice, we note that our client’s aim in this is not to bankrupt you. She would much rather you came to your senses and realised that a person who wishes to be taken seriously as a social commentator, who has pretensions as a scholar of human rights with a PhD should check their facts, and not indulge in flights of libellous fancy. If this matter can be resolved by negotiation resulting inter alia in a correction and apology, that would be far preferable to the expense of proceedings in the ACT Courts.”

Once again, as I said regarding the first correspondence from MTR’s lawyers…. is anyone else surprised at how poorly written this is? Did a lawyer write the above or the janitor who works for a lawyer?

(and janitor’s I hope no offense is taken, I’m sure you all have marvelous writing skills)

I agree about the quality of the letter, Hawkpeter. It’s most curious. It swings from irrelevant (the UNDHR thing) to school-ma’am (“You should reflect..”) to inappropriate (a rhetorical question? really?) to conversational (with a bit of Latin, among other things, thrown in for effect) to directionless (it doesn’t clearly state what the letter is supposed to achieve, other than vague waffle).

A legal trained friend of mine (graduated round 1980) was just telling me recently the young graduates nowadays can barely spell or string a sentence together.

Take this opportunity Jennifer. The point has been made and an apology and retraction will allow you to continue objective journalism. The energy required to fight a courtroom drama will only detract from the quality of future work.

We’re willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we’re asking in return is your cooperation in shutting the f*ck up.
Jennifer: Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about, I give you the finger
[She does]
Jennifer: ….and you give me my phone call.

Some seem to apply to Jennifer, and some seem to apply to both aspects of this scenario viz. –

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Too hilarious for words (but I’ll try). I simply note the outrageous hypocrisy. In her pursuit of her agenda MTR has defamed a number of people and violated their rights as defined by the UDHR, ie Bill Henson, the authors of ‘The Porn Report’ and the Australian Sex Party, not to mention sundry others.

Before she claims protection under the UDHR she should ensure that she respects its provisions, especially Article 19.

“She would much rather you came to your senses and realised that a person who wishes to be taken seriously as a social commentator, who has pretensions as a scholar of human rights with a PhD should check their facts, and not indulge in flights of libellous fancy.”

“Pretensions”??? I’m sorry, once you have a PhD, you are a scholar, no longer someone who has pretensions of being a scholar.

Weezmgk and others: they’re making the claim under Australian law. The section about the Universal Declaration is just window dressing.

I find this all a bit unfathomable – which in a way is why I’m slightly excited about the prospect of having this decided in a court. Certainly I’ve seen academics describe each other as “deceptive and duplicitous” on many occasions and I can’t see anything wrong with doing so – it’s a simple marker of a strong difference of opinion, But here is a chance to discover whether defamation consists of “what is said” or “what is felt by the person it’s directed to”! It could also be a very useful exercise in establishing whether the separation of church and state in Aus is as strong as it’s claimed to be.

And in any case, seeing lawyers criticise others for slinging accusations of “deceptive and duplicitous” seems rather incongruous…

Well, there it is.. For mind I think you need to carefully consider your options – including allowing comments here suggesting people deserve to be spat on.. really, that is not going to assist.

As previously stated, the defamatory imputation is being “deceptive and duplicitous”. I don’t know all the facts by any means, yet justification of that (the truth defence) is not a foregone conclusion. Nor is qualified privilege based upon the implied freedom to comment on political and government matters. Other available defences seem moot.

I advise everyone, on both sides of these cases, to settle on terms they can live with – not what would necessarily make them happy. Costs are always sought in these letters offering terms of settlement but everything is negotiable.

Here, you might, regardless of whether it is acceptable to MTR as an apology, write a clarification of what you meant that gave rise to the alleged defamatory imputation that MTR is or has been “deceptive and duplicitous”. Misconceptions abound in this area of law. Get advice on what you want to say first but a clarification may assist to cool things down.

If you can’t clarify it then I’d leave well enough alone – publishing lawyers’ letters (particularly those marked ‘without prejudice’) and keeping this alive not only adds to any damages awarded but may be additional evidence of malice and will only serve to push MTR into a corner so that she commences the claim…

Jennifer you ‘need’ to go over the post you took so long to moderate (mine-a few days back).
Do it with someone else.
Check the numbers closely and the claims made.

Also,
Have any readers here got enough clout to find out whether the articles over at Drum religion have bee shut down by MTRs lawyers.There have been no fresh posts since the 3rd and no closed for Comment Declaration.I have never had any luck getting through the ABC stonewalling procedures.An email usually takes 3 months to answer,if at all.

The punters need to know just how much clout MTR has over there.

Perhaps this question froze the viewing pane:

_________________________________

Feb 2012 8:57:06pm

Thank you for not using your title here for personal observations/opinions, Renata.It would be inappropriate.

Putting your Drs hat back on,

Do you support misinformation as a legitimate tool/strategy to implement the changes in public policy regarding non violent pornography?

Do you support such strategies in any campaigning?

Would you support individuals or institutions who used this strategy
_____________________________________________________

On the 2nd letter,I think you should excise yourself from Australia and become a refugee camp.

PS I can feel another reply to the Drum coming on.
By the way now that this letter is in the public realm you should send it to every news machine/blog on this planet.

If you DO have some nitty gritty legal advice,it would make sense to contact JW direct by arranging to communicate by emails-or other private means.I can see no reason why her lazy lawyers should trawl this site and get pre-emptive ideas.Or be ready to load up a counter attack.

By all means drop hints or add the basic 2 bobs worth,but if this does go to court,don’t give the ##### a leg up.Keep tactics/strategies/evidence (as much as possible) behind closed doors.

PS: I wasn’t having a go at the time you took to Mod my long winded comment JW,I was hoping you could confirm or otherwise the maths.Or pass to others who can.

I suspect a large proportion of the Australian population would be surprised at the number of Christians including Catholics are in both major political parties. I think most of the Liberal front bench are Catholics.

Rick Lucas you must be joking! The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is aimed fairly and squarely at government interference with the rights of its citizens and those who are temporarily under their control.

That it could be used in the way suggested by these “lawyers” must set every international lawyer who reads it laughing from pillar to post.

I think what the lawyers are trying to infer is that if JW holds up the tenets of such things as the UDHR as being a sacrosanct position,(as in some past blog somewhere) it would be duplicitous/deceptive of JW to defame MTR because it impacts on MTRs right not to have her reputation harmed by words spoken, written etc.

In other words practise what you preach.
LOL A bit rich…
Make of that what you will.

However it (the letter and the inference) denigrates her argument(MTR) it denigrates the value of fee speech,it denigrates feminism,it denigrates the law.It also is a cheap opportunistic way to drag yet another value system into the situation.I strongly suspect it is a close to an olive branch as MTR can go due to her ego,vanity,brand value. And the words are very likely her own,but with a lawyer watching over to make it gap proof,if needed.
Lets be clear,
.
OPINION by ANALOGY
(MTR supporters like analogies.)
(I suspect it makes them feel naughty because the word anal appears in it)
And like all good converts a good story with snappy ending goes a long way.
Especially if the ending requires spin or projection.
Once upon a time there was a hole..
This hole belongs to MTR.
It was deep enough before the first legal letter.
Her lawyer then passed MTR a bigger shovel.(Letter 1)
The hole grew bigger.
MTRs supporters threw more and more,bigger and bigger shovels into the hole.
The hole was almost unrecognisably bigger in no time.
The supporters threw even more shovels down.
(Can you heaaaaaaar me.e.e.e.ee. MTRrrrrrrrrr.Are you dowwwwwwn there?)
The lawyers lowered a massive excavator down the humongous hole,complete with instructions and spare diesel.(Second letter)
My guesses for the next phase???

The MTR supporters will lower a siphon hose to her which will be connected to an endless supply of diesel.
The political aspiration conspiracy will come to life.
The court case will proceed(Unless JW chooses to end the situation in other ways),which would be a turbo charged (bigger) excavator,with a bigger bucket)

Either way, some things we now know.
(Not Rumsfeld)

Its an MTR hole.
Its frikkin big
At no time will the lawyers or supporters actually enter the hole
It aint going nowhere in a hurry.
There are still plenty of ring side seats.

” Would you care to be described publicly as “deceptive and duplicitous?”

Here is you chance to show your true colours Jennifer – I am publicly describing you as deceptive and duplicitous. You claim to be feminist, yet you associate closely with men – to whit, your 4 month old grandson, whom I am convinced you have been cuddling. And, obviously, to have a grandson, you must have indulged in close consort with a male at some point in your lif. Do you care Dr Wilson, to answer such a charge?

” The only remedy the law provides is the right to obtain a judgment declaring that what you wrote was false, and an award of compensation. If you will not retract, the law will protect our client’s rights”.

No, there exist a number of remedies under the law.
Yes, you have the right too seek a judgement, but you may not obtain it. I doubt many judges like being told how they should rule on a matter such as this.
IF, and Ric my friend, it is one rather large if, what Jennifer Wilson wrote was false, then why are you not pursuing others who have made this claim? Any reasonable jurist will ask this question.
An award of compensation can be made in either persons favour in a court of law. That is, if Dr Wilson is shown not to have harmed Melinda, Melinda may have to pay damages and costs to Dr Wilson, particularly if it decided that the matter is vexatious or frivolous, or that no harm was done, or that the percieved harm had already been done, left unchallenged and was by implacation, accepted as correct by your client.

” Without prejudice, we note that our client’s aim in this is not to bankrupt you. She would much rather you came to your senses and realised that a person who wishes to be taken seriously as a social commentator, who has pretensions as a scholar of human rights with a PhD should check their facts, and not indulge in flights of libellous fancy”

Oh, the humanity. So, you can call me whatever you want, without it occuring to you that this could be considered libellous? It is nice to see that your research assistants have read Dr Wilsons’ PhD, however, by selectively quoting from it, it undermines rather than supports your argument.

If this matter can be resolved by negotiation resulting inter alia in a correction and apology, that would be far preferable to the expense of proceedings in the ACT Courts.”

Here is a sample of an apology:
I apologise for calling your client deceptive and duplicitous. I will not do so again. I was incorrect, as she is only a bully, an anti choice wowser and an unoriginal thinker.
She is also a great recycler of others ideas, as are most of her defenders.
And there is also the High Court of Australia, which would make this much more exciting!

* We refer to law graduates who write crap like this as fifty per centers – it is a pass, and once you have the degree, no one asks to see you marks. Or how many times it took you to pass certain subjects. The other term (a looooong time ago) was a Clementine – a reference to getting 49% and passing. It is many years since I haunted the hallowed halls of academia, but I always remember a Professor who would sing or hum this softly as certain graduands came up for their Testamurs. It certainly made the ceremonies go a bit faster.

It seems the Wiki info erasure/edit/modify/cleanse/abortion began in March April 2011(see last link above)
Lots of frenzied editing?
Was this a the start of something?
The laying of foundations of something?
Does this period of time coincide with some sort of action plan or from requests somewhere else about MTRs cred / bio etc?
Newspaper?
Magazine?
ABC??????

I am also sure I was able to get to the area which denoted how many changes a certain person had personally made(yesterday or the day before)don’t seem to be able to find that page no more:(

And, wouldn’t someone have to be human to have their human rights violated? Melindas’ supporters make her out to be a saint, which means she is not human. I seem to remember vaguely that saints were superhuman in the Catholic canons.

I have read the linked article, Hypocritophobe, and it went some way toward helping me understand some of the perplexities surrounding what is broadly brushed as the political ‘religious right’, not only in the US, but here in Australia. To my mind, it emphasises the importance (to those who would control and direct this political entity) of the selection and public promotion of the ‘right’ bell-wethers to lead this disparate flock in the ‘right’ political direction, whatever that may be determined to be by some Eminently Greater Wisdom. (How ironic is it that the blog targeted for shut-down in this SLAPP suit is called ‘No Place for Sheep’?!)

`

Let me say quite clearly that I am an unbeliever in co-incidence where it comes to matters of the manipulation of public opinion.

`

May I suggest that viewers bear in mind some of Jennifer Wilson’s writing elsewhere, in any consideration as to whether there might be ‘anything untoward at Aunty’ with respect to the current ‘#MTRsues’ debacle. Specifically, the article “And the ABC’s Drum beats: ‘Shoot the Wikileaks messenger'”, which she wrote for OnLineOpinion. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11370 , and also some of the comments that article engendered; specifically this one: http://bit.ly/y8eTK0

`

No one could contest the currency, as a matter of public interest, of the attempted extradition of Assange from the UK to Sweden, and the view of Sweden as likely acting as a proxy for the US and on-forwarding Assange to the US, should that extradition go ahead.

Jennifer Wilson, in stark contrast to the two choirs of castrati we presently have in Canberra, has been responsible for ventilating the Assange issue (and that Stockholm blast of 11 December 2010), too. Could that be a major reason behind this attempt to shut her up, do you think?

“… One can but speculate about the power of
the Irish lobby in the US government, as
Sir Menzies Campbell did during a [UK] parliamentary
debate about the Act in 2006. However, it
is well known that the US was remarkably coy
about extraditing IRA suspects back to the UK
to stand trial during the 30-year “Troubles” in
Northern Ireland. We even have well-known
apologists such as Congressman Peter King, the
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE
attempting to demonise organisations like Wikileaks
as terrorist organisations, while at the same being
a life-long supporter of Sinn Fein, the political
wing of the Provisional IRA.

The double standards are breath-taking. The US
dictates an extradition treaty with the UK to stop
terrorism, but then uses this law to target those
who might potentially, tangentially, minutely threaten
the profits of the US entertainment mega-corps; and
then it delays ratifying and implementing its own
law for potentially dubious political reasons. …”

`

The right pedigree, organisationally speaking, to have orchestrated, even if at one or two removes, a terrorist bombing in Stockholm just to keep a lapdog Government of Sweden ‘moving forward*’ in the ‘right’ direction, do you not think?

`

“… And Jennifer Wilson ventilates issues
like this, providing no place for the politically
sheepish, deceptive, or duplicit to hide!
Something must be done!”

Thanks Forrest, I keep forgetting all the things I’ve written that have made me a target! I can’t see the wood for the trees at the moment, so I’m grateful to others for pointing out possibilities. I know I’m a serial pest to the orthodoxy. It’s my fate. LOL!

That would seem to have been implicit in the content of wikileaks cable STOCKHOLM748. From memory, that cable recorded, from a US diplomatic perspective, discussions with Swedish foreign affairs officials wherein for the US to obtain what it wanted (an HSPD 6 style agreement or such like) from the Government Of Sweden it was advised that this could only be achieved by a circumvention of the Swedish Constitution.

One should, in fairness to the Swedish officials involved, bear in mind the huge inequality between the parties to the discussion this cable records. Just because the Swedes pointed out that circumvention of their Constitution would be involved if such agreement as sought by the US was formalized, does not of itself mean that those Swedish officials were promoting such circumvention. They may have been being merely diplomatically ‘polite’, and simply stalling in this respect.

It did seem from the diplomatically polite Swedish response recorded to the US demands, however, that there may have been evasions of the Swedish Constitution implicit in the already existing ‘informal’ arrangements between Sweden and the US in relation to extraditions, access to the US terrorist information database, and such like.

If the Swedes were stalling, it does not require much of a stretch of the imagination to see the US orchestrating a little ‘demonstration’ in downtown Stockholm just to move the Swedes along, so to speak. It is a matter of speculation as to whether any or some Swedish politicians were in any way complicit, or kept informed in advance, in this little exercise of real terrorism, just as it would be to speculate upon UK, or even former IRA, participants being directly involved in the, in all probability, quite literal execution of the alleged ‘suicide’ bomber that may have been naught but a patsy in this affair.

It is interesting to see the shamefully partisan views being expressed by some Swedish politicians in relation to the Assange matter in advance of any hearing. Perhaps they do this in the knowledge that there is intended never to be any Swedish hearing that could, in consequence, be prejudiced. Could this perhaps unconscious breach of fairness have arisen from knowledge or suspicion on the part of those politicians that the whole gamut of the alleged sexual improprieties was nothing but part of a long-running US operation designed to do nothing but entrap Assange on Swedish soil from the outset?

I can’t profess to be a lawyer myself, but from my research on defamation law within Australia and the A.C.T., Jennifer would appear to be on very firm ground. Of the defenses available to her, regardless of whether MTR feels Jennifer’s opinion was true or justified, for instance:

1) Fair comment – Was this the expression of an honestly held opinion on a subject of public interest? A look at MTRs work on RU486, and, as Jill Singer pointed at on the Herald Sun, MTR’s own words on the public record about her faith (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/unholy-row-for-feminism-high-ground/story-e6frfhqf-1226246796771) lend themselves well to any reasonable person holding this opinion. As for it being a subject of public interest – given MTR seeks to influence public policy, this is a topic of public interest.

2) Triviality – Were the circumstances/occasion of the publication trivial to the extent that the person defamed was not likely to suffer harm? Not to decry the quality of Jennifer’s writing (which I happen to think is fantastic), but given the size of her audience, and the fact that it was a relatively quiet corner of the internet, potentially MTR is suing over something trivial, and a judge may well look at this and refuse to let the case proceed due to its frivolous nature.

Factor in innocent dissemination – e.g. that MTR’s threat of legal action has lead to other people disseminating Jennifer’s opinion, and that Jennifer is hardly responsible for that, and really, I’m of the honestly held opinion that Jennifer should be standing her ground.

Well they wouldn’t be legal eagles worth their salt if they hadn’t already anticipated these possible defenses – and indeed my own bush lawyer instinct has me of the opinion that they know they’re paddling up s*** creek without a paddle.

Especially when there’s been a decent groundswell of people, myself included, who have indicated our willingness to donate towards Jennifer’s defense if required.

Falling back on my actual profession of PR, my recommendation would be for MTR to retract the legal threats and get on with her life, as she’s ultimately in a lose/lose situation, but the option with the least damage to herself is that of retreat. She wouldn’t have to publicly acknowledge the retreat, just a note to Jennifer saying “On review, we have decided to no longer pursue this course of action, please disregard our previous correspondence.” and be done with it.

Then there’s the admission by Lucas of his client’s slanderous opinion…Slander not so much because she told the lawyer that Jennifer is out of her senses & a pretend scholar etc, but because MTR having stated this blatent untruth, gave the lawyer permission (instructed him) to write it in a letter with the express purpose of sending the letter to Jennifer, knowing it would hurt & upset her. Thus also libel. (Also having reasonable expectation that Jennifer would post some or all its content on NPFS) In addition the whole tone of the letter evokes visions of the classic paternal chauvanistic headmaster tapping the cane against the palm of his hand berating & lecturing as he towers over the cringing tiny figure of a little girl. Add in the pre-emptive “don’t you dare tell anybody” admonition in the first letter, it reeks of bully boy behaviour.

One thing for sure, I’d NEVER retain a brief so willing to damage any law suit I might bring…especially if it were based on three words isolated out of context of the sentence/paragraph/article.

I did think those letters were rather authoritarian. Maybe that’s just what lawyers do to intimidate.

About the adoption of babies – once again those who believe a mother should carry, deliver and then relinquish her child have no concern for the mother. They really do see women as vessels, don’t they?

You may be right Gwynn.
I’m just not one for push starting a car thief,pinching my car.

You are right about MTRs predicament,because the louder she screams the more and more attention she draws to the Canberrian string pullers..Sooner or later someone in a very lofty position will tell her to back down.
“Save your fight for another day dear” etc.
I doubt that JW will have a problem either funding or winning a case.It just gets down to how much collateral damage the conservative camp want to accumulate.

This is a case of a silver back behaviour.

Not very lady like.

It does smell a lot like the Assange treatment Chapter 2.

The very fact that the bastions of free speech are not howling from the parapets shows just how fiscally slut like they are.

And yes,
“Pulling out” is indeed a great option.
And what’s more,it’s the Catholic way.

The High Court has recently been willing to declare that the Constitution contains an implied guarantee of freedom of speech for political matters. This arises from the system of government set up by the Constitution, whereby the citizens elect representatives and have the right to amend the Constitution itself by majority vote. For this system to work, a full, free and robust exchange of views is required.

Attempts to stifle debate by way of defamation actions and the like are not to be successful, should the defendant manage to show that his or her Constitutional right has been infringed.

The question therefore becomes, is MTR’s threatened suit intended to stifle a political foe from exercising her said rights?

Interesting and arguable; ‘political’ does not necessarily apply only to matters relating to elections, it may extend to the free exchange of views on matters such as the fitness of certain people to hold office, or to the advice that some persons may provide to political leaders or influential figures, in an attempt to influence public policy or to garner support for changes to legislation or to support current legislation.

In short, these issues should be carefully canvassed if and when MTR stops being piss and wind and drops the load, so to speak.

I just watched the webcast of the aust christian lobby webcast with Qld LNP leader Campbell Newman. One of the questions at the end was something about getting more children for fostering, by “supporting pregnant women”.

The implication is that channeling women away from abortion would allow more children for adoption by christian families. Part of an agenda?!

Yep, saving the poor waif conceived in sin from the dirty whore and good holy christian families will climb their stairway to heaven by raisng the child of sin knowing how blessed he/she is & being grateful for the crumbs off their table.

The only reason there is a shortage of babies for adoptive parents is because the xtian do-gooders can no longer get away with kidnapping other people babies any more.

It’s also why the previous victims of child-stealing don’t want an apology but prosecutions of the law-breakers.

Imagine how full the court room would be.
It’s win win.
JW could sell her story to Baptist Feminist Weakly, (Part fund the costs) and then it could be made into a 3D blockbuster starring Cameron Diaz as JW and Cathy Bates could play MTR.
She was great as the weird stalker in Misery.Fine actor indeed.

The inclusion of Mia Freidman into this discussion brings to mind the observation made by Roland Barthes in “Mythologies” that, “the bourgeoisie always obscures itself”.
The face of capitalism is prettied-up, disarms criticism and investigation seeking to discover any underlying substance beyond the feyish presented surface.
But the Lucas letter demonstrates that Wilson and others have succeeded in disturbing the waters sufficiently, casting a ripple that has momentarily forced the sort of interests that the cupcakes represent to reveal their real face, in the arrogant, elitist ugly communication of Lucas’ harshly authoritarian letter.
Not so nice when we realise the pig is lipsticked, but the slip had to eventually show some time, the prohibitive, authoritarian fertility aspects of conservative womens “thinking” encouraged too much curiosity from thinking people and allowed them to trace back the pronouncements to their ugly underlying ultraist and commodifying bases.

Gwynn
You are using reason, and they only speak fire and brimstone. Beautifully put, and yes, Paul the pig is indeed lipsticked, brazillianed and blond. But the pig doesn’t believe in porn 😛
My tired ancient brain is enjoying this way to much,
Wheres the bromide?
And Jennifer, the lurgy is just a germ. And being sick is not a symptom of anything other than exposure to a germ. Take care, we will continue to tilt at whirligigs and fools.

The link she gave therein, http://t.co/4E1XT17V , was to ABC Radio National Religion and Ethics Report item ‘The Priest in the Parliament’.

The item refers to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper, as an ordained priest in the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). The second paragraph of the item says:

“The TAC is a small church – its website
lists fewer than 20 parishes around Australia
– but it has big plans, because the Vatican
has agreed to incorporate much of the TAC
into the Catholic Church via the so-called
Anglican Ordinariate.”

If it is a fact that that part of the TAC in which Peter Slipper is an ordained priest is one included within that Vatican agreement, then the government has already run into a problem with respect to the Constitution inasmuch as the present Speaker would appear, under the provisions of Section 44 (i), to be ineligible to remain a member of the House of Representatives. Section 45 (i) goes on to state:

“If a senator or member of the House of Representatives –

(i) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities
mentioned in the last preceding section: ….
.
.

his place shall thereupon become vacant.”

The ABC Religion and Ethics Report goes on in its third paragraph to spectacularly overlook the overriding significance of the Constitutional provision that has conceivably already come into play, in stating:

“Given that the speaker of the Australian
parliament could end up a Catholic priest,
as part of this ordinariate, we explore this
issue, especially because, since the late
1970s, the Vatican has banned all Catholic
clergy from holding political office.”

The third paragraph quoted plants the idea that Peter Slipper is not yet a Catholic priest. Perhaps that may even be correct. The irony is that the anticipated application of the Vatican ban spoken of constitutes a practical illustration of exactly what Section 44 specifies as a disqualification for membership of either House of the Parliament, to wit that of being:

“… under any acknowledgment of allegiance,
obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, …”

Australia provides an ambassador to the Holy See. It is recognised as a foreign state.

There is a reason that no Catholic priest has been a member of either House of the Parliament since Federation. That reason is the disqualification contained within the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Even should there be some short delay in the House recognising the applicability of this disqualification, it is inconceivable that the Speaker could continue in discharge of his office at a time when his very eligibility to be a member is in question. That could leave the government with a problem with respect to numbers in the House of Representatives with Anna Burke having to take the chair as Deputy-Speaker.

Interestingly, the Religion and Ethics Report item, near its end, made the claim:

Absolute rubbish. Only the citizens of the Vatican City owe allegiance to the Pope as a temporal leader.

“Unlike citizenship of other states, which is based either on jus sanguinis (birth from a citizen, even outside the state’s territory) or on jus soli (birth within the territory of the state), citizenship of Vatican City is granted jus officii, namely on the grounds of appointment to work in a certain capacity in the service of the Holy See. It usually ceases upon cessation of the appointment. Citizenship is extended also to the spouse, parents and descendants of a citizen, provided they are living with the person who is a citizen”

It would be a pity to allow a confusion over Vatican citizenship to deflect attention from the arguable Constitutional disqualification from sitting as a member of the present Speaker, Peter Slipper.

Vatican Citizenship, and Papal temporal leadership of such persons, is not what is primarily in question here. What forms the basis for the Constitutional disqualification is the being of an Australian citizen as an ordained member of the RC clergy under acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, and adherence, together with the having of entitlement to rights or privileges of that foreign power.

Jennifer Wilson may be able to build a war-chest of financial resources with which to defend against any defamation suit that may ensue, however. Section 46 of the Constitution provides:

“Until the Parliament otherwise provides,
any person declared by this Constitution
to be incapable of sitting as a senator or
member of the House of Representatives shall,
for every day on which he so sits, be liable
to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any
person who sues for it in any court of
competent jurisdiction.”

The only questions requiring to be settled are such as to if, and when, Peter Slipper became an ordained priest in the TAC, and whether that part of the TAC in which he is claimed to have been ordained is one falling within the terms of the Vatican agreement recognising such ordained priests as members of the Catholic priesthood.

I should expect that there exists a significant body of constitutional legal precedent covering the application of Section 44.

As I indicated in a tweet was likely to be the case, the silence with respect to this matter is deafening, isn’t it?

I confess myself puzzled on the silence, however I suspect there’s much behind the scenes work going on that will erupt when certain people feel the time is right.
Slipper has many enemies, the mad monk one of their leaders.

Right wing conservative politics draws heavily on religion : in the USA, Taliban Christians of the protestant southern persuasion and whoever else cares to join the bandwagon, and in Australia the Taliban Catholics and whatever protestants are so benighted as to align with them.

Religion is both a creed and a tool :

What can you not justify with “God on your side”?? (especially if “Christ is within”) LOL

I see Joe Hildebrand is playing the race card by setting up indigenous people as being useless drunks.Aaagh what some folk will do the push the Coalition agenda, of polarising the community.
There must be a lull in refugee boats,time to play footy with the local ‘natives’, eh Tony?.
Good on you Joe,nothing like inciting race hate.

“Hotel manager Ron Tynne says the camera crew should not have been filming people in the Todd River bed, a notorious local drinking area.

He says he believes the film crew took footage of Aboriginal people without their permission. ”

“”We thought the best way to de-escalate the situation was to get out of their way … get out of their sight.”
(Now there is a confession right there)
I wonder what sort of narcissistic,arrogant, racist ,opportunistic, journalistic, impostor,would piggy back on the events of the Australia Day protest?

Head out to Alice Springs and invade the already dysfunctional lives of a dispossessed people.
Then when sprung secretly filming them ,scarper back to the hotel,to let the reaction THEY created, pan out while he hid under the bed with warm, urine trickling down the inside of his nappy-rashed inside thigh.

I will bet the hotel where he sought sanctuary was just the closest building where could could hide his bony, yellow spine.

The holder of the “Anti Aboriginal of the Year,Perpetual Trophy” (Andrew Bolt) will be jealous.

I hope they summons Hildebrand back to Alice to face an angry mob.In fact I hope they get to do some tribal justice on him.

The presence of Hildebrand et al can be in no way justified.Hope he fries.
Did the ABC seek permission to film the people? Probably not.
.
“Oh, no they weren’t in the shot.They were just a mere 8 or 9 of us gawking at their misery and for some reason they took offence. Honest. We even tried to conceal ourselves”
Why would the ABC deliberately use Hildebrand,an insensitive, buffoon from the Kyle Sandilands School of Diplomacy.
Which local indigenous groups were the crew liaising with, during their visit?

Show the perpetrators of anti-aboriginal racism,not the victims.
Nice empathy.(NOT)

maybe Aunty will invite him back on Q & A where he will share the panel with an Aboriginal unapologetic rights campaigner, Graeme Innes, and Stella Young from Ramp Up.
Hmmm…need 2 more to make up the numbers…who else???

The trouble is, Don Quixote, there is so little sense of live and let live. The initial folly of the old priests across the board fifty years ago on contraception was at the heart of the old prudery’s efforts to reassert its influence in social processes.This was made easier by population increase too rapid for infrastructure and resources badly (re)distributed throughout the process.
Talibanisation has spread world wide and through different faiths and ideologies as the real cleavage, between moderation and humility, and reactionary militancy, appears.
The glossies feminists are just covers for the usually obscured uglier face of the authoritarian mentality, momentarily displayed in the attempted browbeating of Dr.Wilson by those seeking to silence her.
Its not inconvenient to consider how overreactive the conservatives are and begin to think deeper as to why its the case. What’s with the “controlly” stuff,
talk about schoolyard bullies!
As for the ABC, last Sunday night when they only had crap on, SBS went throught the evening with three or four hours of top quality teev, marred only by the ads. User pays?

“By the very nature of democracy, the obtaining
of influence by deception must centre around the
advancement of deceptive candidacy and/or the undetected
manipulation of the mechanics of the electoral process.”

The post is near the end of a fairly long general discussion topic, ‘The Constitution and discrimination’, and viewers will need to scroll around a bit for context. Discussion of Vatican influence figures prominently in that context.

Ponder the implications of the encyclical ‘Pergrata’ in one of the earlier posts.

`

BTW, I gather something bad happened on the ABC?
Was having a few hours off, away from Twitter etc.
Come back to find wheels off everywhere! What
happened?

“Their first priority is their imaginary friend and human beings come a poor second.”

I would go so far as to say – their first priority is the way their belief in the supernatural, and its supposedly earthly deeds, comforts & empowers them; and their second priority is fellow humans whose similar belief also primarily empowers them.

Prediction.
Will join the Libs (within 18months.He cannot go any higher in the ABC.He’s not a real journo, so no private player wants him)

Reason he is so bitter ?
You would be too,if on top of the standard layer of requisite Catholic guilt, you had the added layer of the guilt of failing your priesthood.
(Abbotts twin life experience, hence twin behaviour.)
Failure X failure = Liberal Party Doyen
All people (especially women) need to be very worried about the way our nation is heading.
It is not only the private media players distorting the picture.
Thankfully the internet is exposing the tentacles.

By the way,Turnbull will start wearing red,if not gold ties soon,and be doing more media interviews.

Time for the media( all of them) ask MTR one simple question.
What religion are YOU aligned to.
Until I hear otherwise from a reputable source I am going to believe at some point since her ‘non-foray’ into politics, she has converted (as much as one can) to Catholicism.

Uhlmann is interesting. He ran for election in 1998 for a pro-life mob. As a fellow failed priest, he has plenty in common with Abbott. Married to Brodtmann, Labor member for Canberra, is a strangeness factor. I don’t know much about her or where she is coming from; various wesites contain only “motherhood” statements by and about her. Her maiden speech contained the following (after pages of waffle – you owe me!) :

” Finally, thank you to my husband, Chris Uhlmann. Thank you for introducing me to the shades of grey in life, for broadening and deepening my spiritual and moral understanding and for reminding me each day that decency must prevail, whatever the circumstances.”

She does seem fond of motherhood statements, does she not? She goes on to claim to be Labor to her bootstraps. Probably wise, if she wants to get on.

IF she’s RC too,that would come way before her position,her party allegiance,her sexuality and her husband remember.
So if dear Chris is going into bat fro the Vatican (at Gillard) she would have to toe the line.
I don’t see Mrs Abbott showing a view different to her keeper/controller.

Come to think of it I have never seen Reist’s chocolate-carter disagree with her,either.
Maybe he’s scared of the (Christ Lives Within) her, side?

Glad they’re not my solicitors or I would have asked for my (or whoever’s money is bankrolling MTR’s crack legal team) back. I know it’s probably wrong and I’ll burn in hell, but I did laugh a lot when I read it. I could feel the pain and suffering in fact!

Jennifer, as I’ve posted here and elsewhere, asserting that women have rights over their own bodies is not heresy, it’s simply ensuring their BASIC human rights.

Unfortunately this is not an Australian phenomenon alone. Briefly put, most health insurance plans must now cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities.

What is lost in this issue (and in many ways in the local MTR ‘circus’) is that choices regarding the use of contraception, or if fact the accessing of abortion services, can and only should be made by the individual women involved. Their bodies, their choice – simple. They can after all say ‘no’ should they wish.

While many American Catholic bishops (all males of course) are jumping up and down, recent polls of CATHOLICS released this week indicate that a MAJORITY of Catholics surveyed (approximately 60%) believe that employers should provide health care plans that cover contraception. This further undermines right-wing media claims that President Obama has declared “war on Catholics” or a “war on religion” because of his administration’s recent decision requiring religiously affiliated organizations to offer health care plans that cover contraception.

DQ
IMHO,
All Man’s pseudo Labor wife is as ‘brides of christ’ as you can get outside a nuns outfit.
Like MTR her gigs are majority Catholic ribbon-cutting ceremonies, where she drenches the shiny red ribbons with obsequious, sequins of sentences praising all things Roman Catholic.

She definitely won’t be demanding to be known as feminist any time soon.

Gee,what a coincidence.Damon Young’s atheist blog over at Roman Catholic central is not working.

Oh well.Here’s the heads up.

“Servant of God”, is it the big Cohuna himself.
No,not god, is it the Pellmeister?
Is it Holly?
Is it MTR ? (are they each other??)

Is it the failed priests Abbott and All Man?
(are they each other??)

The only other nominee is Scott Stevens.
(Is he his own man?)
____________________________________
A Servant of God :

10 Feb 2012 7:08:41pm

Only the arrogant dismiss concepts they have no understanding of, despite evidence that supports the phenomenon. Although there are indeed many frauds, the accuracy of many prophets shows that there are forces beyond the current understanding of our science.

Many do not understand that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but complimentary. Prophecy (which is an inexplicable but real phenomenon) is testimony to this truth. There are forces at play that our science does not yet understand.

Believe what you like but I suggest those who live an immoral life pray there is no God or Judgement Day.
_____________________________________________
Here we go loopy lu…
_____________________________________________
Anyway the owner of the pup said:

“Prophecy (which is an inexplicable but real phenomenon)”

So is paedophilia Mr servant of God.

Guess which Institution has monopoly on that evil,sordid crime against humanity?
We can’t dress our kids in certain clothes,but the Church can cover up those who undress and defile the same children.
How peculiar.

Well may we laugh Helvi,
Think about the man sitting across from our PM last night and what he was thinking while lining her up.Think about his machinations on which boxes Gillard ticks to gain his respect.His approval.His Popes approval.
This matters a lot to RC men,especially priests.Moreso guilty failed ones.
What lies and misinformation about Gillard also dwells in his mind,gleaned from the caustic whispers of Abbotts,Howards, Minchin henchmen, also fuel his prejudice?.

Thought bubbles begin…
Is she a Roman catholic?
Is she married?
Does she have children?
Is she likely too?
Is she living a single celibate life?
Does she openly praise the ‘good’ works of Catholicism?
Is she pro-life?
Has she ever said anything about Catholics(eg Abbott) which ‘he’ considers offensive.
Has she done more to help Catholic and private schools or more for public schools?
Does her view on climate change agree with Pells?
>>>…..and the interview begins,
on 4.3,2,1………………………………………

In other words neither Abbott or All Man can let go of the corrupted power of the CONFESSIONAL context, so intoxicating and enticing in their previous incarnations.

The opiate of the masses washing over their loins.

As soon as they find themselves one on one with a woman, in their chosen roles, they sit empowered illegitimately in self-righteousness. In pitying judgement, in order to fully control the outcome.Gain power.

“Hmmm…need 2 more to make up the numbers…who else???”
______________________________________
I would like to think the infantile buffoon Hildebrand, and the toxic idiots from ABC2 would realise that he/they have totally denigrated the great works of the Senior Australian of the Year,
Laurie Baymarrwangga, from Milingimbi, by their obscene behaviour in Alice Springs.
Repeat Senior Australian of the Year.

As a 90 YO woman she *still* walks the walk for her people and teaches the community unselfishly,to continue to do the same.I cannot comprehend the depth of her commitment and knowledge, but I am prepared to have a go.
Their (Hildebrand and co.) behaviour has so *totally* devalued something which all Australians should acknowledge is a truly phenomenal achievement.

Goodness knows the broader Australian community are totally unaware of Laurie Baymarrwangga and her work, and the ABC et al,have now shown they could not give a toss.
Is it so hard to focus on the positive?
Must they suppress the light of hope at every given chance?

So my first nominee for the panel,Julia is someone to represent Laurie Baymarrwangga, Senior Australian of the Year.

My second nominee would be Pat Dodson, for the obvious reason,that if people *don’t* know why he was chosen, then he IS the perfect choice.Because in the most humble/unselfish/compassionate way, he too will impart an amazingly simple and fulfilling knowledge.
This is what the First Australians have to offer us.All of us.
All we have to do is listen.Respect.
How hard is it?
If Hildebrand is capable of listening and learning bring him forward, but I doubt he has the depth of character.If he and the ABC were interested in exposing the institutionalised racism against,and total dis-empowerment of,the First Australians,they would have sought the company of this brilliant and beautiful human being, in order to inspire us all.

I think the doco is investigating the reputation we have acquired amongst Indians for being racist, drunk and stupid. Hildebrande’s comments on disability certainly show him capable of ignorance and prejudice, as well as very bad manners. I don’t know if he’s racist and I’m not saying anything about stupidity.

If Dillderbrand wanted to see if we are racist drunk and stupid as per the Indian perception,he should strap a hidden camera on and hang out in 85% of watering holes across Australia.
Or just listen to attitudes around him.He had no need / rightto invade the lives of indigenous people,in their personal space,without their permission,It is not just a case of ‘public open space’ in this situation and he/they knew it.They would have known a strong negative reaction was possible.Did they get permission from any authorities to film?The police?

I consider racism is very broadly defined/perceived definition.Most racists deny it.In the end the person on the receiving end is in the best position to know what is and isn’t.

I know for a fact that there is special vein of paternalistic,anti indigenous racism rife in this country.

Hildebrand and the crew will get off scot free, while the two women (who could quite easily have minded there own business if not harassed and gawked at, and would likely not have batted an eyelid) will very likely be imprisoned.Then another sorry chapter begins.

And then there’s black deaths in custody….

You’re right about the stupid thing, JW.
But he’s wilfully irresponsible as well.

They’ll never acknowledge an e-mailed idea such as that because if they implement anything at all as the result of their own original inspiration they just don’t want to be sued. Basically I don’t think it suits their business model anyway, but you never know…